ET (Extra-Terrestrial)

et
Like most kids growing up in Denver in the 1980s, the only thing that could slow me down was sickness or a movie directed by Steven Spielberg. My brother and sister and I were always spellbound.   We didn’t like to re-watch most movies, but his we could watch over and over and over.

Spielberg, clearly Jewish by his name, had a better mystical understanding of the Old and New Testament than many Catholics.

For example, I don’t remember a single homily growing up on worthy reception of Holy Communion as the Apostle Paul warns the lukewarm Corinthians:

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.—1 Cor 11:27-30

It seems that Spielberg got pretty close in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade when the unworthy Donovan approaches Christ’s original chalice:

Maybe that scene is partly why I only offer the Latin Mass now.  Just kidding.

Kind of.  Not really.

In any case, my friend Ben once told me his theory that Spielberg’s ET was a projection of his subliminal desire for Jesus Christ, a resurrected savior with a glowing Sacred Heart. It seemed like a stretch.

After re-watching ET in my adulthood, I realized that Ben may be right.  Thus I’m going to add to his reasons.

Here’s some ways that the fictional alien ET is like the historical Jesus Christ:

1) He brings new life (The flowers come back to life.)
2) He heals (Elliot’s finger after the saw accident)
3) He rides his bike in the air (kind of like walking on water…okay, this one is stretch.)
4) He bears the people’s pain.
5) He feels our feelings (Elliot’s, especially.)
6) He dies at the Mercy hour (“1536” is when they call ET’s death)
7) He dies for Elliot—literally takes his death on himself, or rather in himself.
8) He resurrects from the dead  (at the call of love, when Elliot says “I love you.”  Love is stronger than death.)
10) He wears white at his resurrection.
11) He says “I’ll be right here” as he touches Elliot’s head with his lit finger, almost as to say before leaving, “I’ll be with you always.”
12) He ascends whence he came.

13) His heart glows like the Sacred Heart of Jesus:

et heart

Who is Steven Spielberg really longing for?

St. Mary Magdalene Part 2 of 2

m and m

The above picture is taken from Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ.  It is clear in this movie, and in most private revelations, that Mary (the Mother of Jesus) knew Mary Magdalene long before the crucifixion.

Granted, Scripturally I know of no other time when Mary and Mary are found in the same place, except John 19:25 (the three Mary’s at the crucifixion.)  So my theory can’t be proved from Scripture.  However, using common sense, we can be very sure that Mary and Mary didn’t simply introduce oneself to each the other at the foot of the cross.  It can be assumed that this would be an inappropriate time for introductions; Mary and Mary had to have known each other long before the crucifixion.

Even though she has very few words, let’s look at who Mary (the Mother of God) knew in the New Testament.  Of course, she is at the four most important events of salvation history, which gives us an idea of who knew her:

1) The Incarnation of God as a zygote (Luke 1:38)

2) The Death of Jesus (John 19)

3) The Resurrection (Sacred Tradition)

4) Pentecost (Acts 1 and 2)

But then, on a smaller scale, it’s surprising who Mary knew.  Mary seemed to have a quiet presence in the life of everybody:

On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. Jesus also was invited to the wedding with His disciples.—John 2:1

Mary seems to be the star of the invitation, where Jesus’ band of 12 fishermen were “also invited.”  Of course, Jesus never committed any sin of gluttony, but maybe Jesus’ disciples ate too much at weddings or something, because John makes it pretty clear they were an afterthought!

The Apostles all knew Mary.  Foremost was John the beloved, who was to live with the Blessed Virgin Mary after Christ’s Death (John 19:27) and assumedly after the Ascension.  (Their home was uncovered in Turkey in 1891, using the private revelations of Bl. Emmerich—the same visions that guided the making of the movie, the Passion of the Christ.)

John’s brother James, whose feast day we celebrate today, was not left orphaned by Mary.  As you know, Jesus sent James to evangelize Spain.  However, at one point James was ready to give up after only gaining 8 disciples.  Mary bi-located to him when he was praying at modern day Zaragoza, and (during the first approved Marian apparition) Mary told James not to give up, for the faith of that people would be as strong as the pillar that she was standing on.

There is a 17th century Spanish nun named Mary of Agreda who was given a private revelation of the entire life of Mary (the Mother of God.)  It is put into several thousand pages of a book that you can buy, the Mystical City of God (not to be confused with the work of St. Augustine by almost the same name.)  In the Mystical City of God, it is revealed to the nun of Agreda that Saul was always slated in God’s Providence to become the great Apostle of Jesus Christ to the nations.

However…this event was to happen much later that when it was originally “scheduled” by God, so to speak.  What changed the course of history was the prayers of the mother of Jesus.  After Pentecost, Mary saw in prophesy that Saul would become the chosen vessel, but she saw this was coming much later than when the Church needed such a weapon of love.  Mary begged God the Father to speed up this conversion, and God the Father answered; Saul became Paul much earlier than he was slated to.

What does any of this have to do with Mary Magdalene?

A few days ago, as I was offering the Mass on the Feast day of St. Mary Magdalene, the above scene from the movie hit me:  Mary holds Mary during the torture of Jesus.  I realized at that moment that all the great saints of the New Testament were really close to the Mother of God.  Even if you don’t believe in the private revelations that filled the movie of Mel Gibson or the Mystical City of God, common sense applied to Scripture reveals that the mother of Jesus intimately knew all the slobs and dignitaries of the New Testament.

Here’s how I want to tie all of this together:

After doing Total Consecration to Mary for the first time several years ago, I had actually come to believe the words of St. Louis De Montfort, namely, that there were a few certain saints (like St. Bernard or St. Bonaventure) who chose Mary as the quickest and surest way to Jesus Christ.  For a long time, I had taken this to be a development of doctrine of the middle-ages—a wonderful and valid one, to be sure—but a development of doctrine nonetheless.

But at the Mass a few days ago in honor of St. Mary Magdalene, as I thought of the above scene of Mary and Mary, I had this realization that Jesus’ mother is the dispersal vector of zeal for her Son for not only for the great saints of the middle-ages—but for all the tycoons of the New Testament.  This would surely include the conversion of St. Mary Magdalene.

In light of all the great people and the events of the first century Church, we have to come to the conclusion that the Holy Theotokos—she who carries God as the God-Bearer—is the one who gently brings all the top dogs of the New Testament to her Christ Jesus.  Even with Mary Magdalene, I imagine the mother of Jesus was the quickest and strongest way to her son.  So it will always be, for you and for me, too.

St. Mary Magdalene Part 1 of 2

mary-magdalene-xlg

Before I was a priest, I was a paramedic.  I remember running a call with the SWAT team in Southwest Denver. It was a midnight drug-bust and we had to accompany the police in the event that someone become wounded in the raid. We entered minutes after the SWAT team…and it had a pretty anticlimactic ending.  The police arrested only two people.  The young man and woman were caught in a compromised position, so to speak…and it smelled filthy. I was surprised at the stench, and it wasn’t the smell of drugs that was off-putting. Later in seminary, I remember reading on my own about how certain saints (like St. Christina the Astonishing) could smell impurity on people. I’m not claiming that the SWAT team or I had that gift. I just mean that there is a natural and a preternatural link to the fact that impurity stinks, literally.

Today, on both the old and new Catholic calendars, it is the feast of St. Mary Magdalene (22 July.) She too was filthy and with demons before meeting Jesus.  How interesting, then, that the Tradition Latin Mass Gospel of today recognizes the following woman as St. Mary Magdalene:

Then turning toward the woman, [Jesus] said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave Me no water for My feet, but she has wet My feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You gave Me no kiss, but from the time I came in, she has not ceased to kiss My feet. You did not anoint My head with oil, but she has anointed My feet with ointment. Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven—for she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little.” And He said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.” Then those who were at table with him began to say among themselves, “Who is this, who even forgives sins?” And He said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”—Luke 7:44-50

There is a mention in another Gospel of the smell surrounding Mary Magdalane:

Mary anointed the Feet of Jesus, and wiped Them with her hair; and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.

This quote from John 12 was actually the morning prayer antiphon taken from John chapter 12. Thus, the ancient Western Church took the controversial women of Luke 7 and John 12 to be both the same person:  St. Mary Magdalene.

But notice the word “filled” in the above italics from John 12:3.   The word “filled” comes from the Latin impleta or Greek “ἐπληρώθη,” meaning that the whole house was filled with that smell of that spiked nard of extremely rich oil. What the ancient liturgy is telling us in placing those words in the morning-prayer antiphon is clear: No longer was the house filled with the stench of the sins of impurity.

Not only is Mary forgiven, but the smell of purity fills the entire house. The house is clearly analogous to the temple that is the body of St. Mary Magdalene. She now sits in the home, at Jesus’ feet, not only cleansed from her sin, but with a pacifying inebriation that comes from the anointing of a transformed soul.  She is beautiful and clean, and everyone can detect this, except those who remain in spiritual pride.  They remain in pride because they refuse to trust in the One they simply call “master.”

Remember also that oils were used to clean wounds. The stripped and half-dead traveller by the side of the road is approached by the good Samaritan who “binds up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine.”—Luke 10:34. In ancient culture, oil was used to clean wounds, assumedly because most bacteria could not survive when drowned in strong oil.  Thus, Jesus doesn’t just take away the juridical imputation of sin, but at that point makes her strong again, inside and out, through and through, to the point that the overwhelming smell of spiced nard fills the whole house, the whole new life of Mary Magdalene.

This is not just post-modern presumption of God’s mercy. How do I know? Because within the ancient office of readings that we pray (the Divine Office) there is the equally astounding call-and-return a few hours later within the Psalms called “Tertia,” still referring to St. Mary Magdalene:

  • In thy comeliness and in thy beauty.
  • In thy comeliness and in thy beauty.
  • Go forward, fare prosperously, and reign.
  • In thy beauty.
  • Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost.
  • In thy comeliness and in thy beauty. Go forward, fare prosperously, and reign.

Who would have thought that the Messiah would spiritually wed the Magdalene? But the ancient liturgy today is clear: God-Incarnate, Jesus Himself, is calling a soul once-filthy to be His bride, for she is now filled with comeliness and beauty. So go forward, and reign in that anointing that fills the whole royal house with Christ your king, your spouse.  Forget your past, for you now exist in comeliness and beauty.

Ransom Note

Last week, Planned Parenthood was exposed for handing over the tissue of dead babies for research.  The president of Planned Parenthood, Cecile Richards, immediately made a press release explaining that Planned Parenthood itself did not make any money on this. Here’s proof she was lying:

America will be shocked, but the question remains:  What will end abortion?  Today, a woman in Louisiana texted me the answer:  “Our Response: Prayer and fasting isn’t enough! We need to sacrifice all for the love of God.”

We need to sacrifice all for the love of God.

America has seen the evil of abortion, but we continue to slaughter 3,500 children a day.  Why?  Most women are afraid and alone when they walk into that clinic, but we as a country find ending abortion difficult because of our minor inconveniences to the libido and bank account.

Thus, the end of abortion will come only through Divine Intervention.

But maybe God Almighty is waiting for this Divine Intervention.  Maybe He is waiting for people to step up to the actual doors of abortion mills for peaceful prolonged-fasts or hunger strikes. Imagine who would follow Cardinal Dolan if he led a hunger strike in front of the Planned Parenthood in the East Village of Manhattan?  I would.

For nearly 800 years, young celibate men from Europe, under the mantle of Our Lady of Ransom, would offer to take the place of women and children who had been kidnapped by Muslims.  Christians were rescued through several different religious orders, but it took men who would not just give up candy in Lent, but young men would agree to be handed over to the forces of darkness so that others may live.

mer

With Planned Parenthood and ISIS promoting more death than ever in the history of the world, I believe that God is raising up young men who will give their lives in ransom.  I don’t mean figuratively.  I mean that we can use YouTube to reach ISIS to offer ourselves to be slaves for them.  Each man could then ask ISIS that they release 5 Christian girls and 5 Muslim girls for every celibate brother or priest given in ransom against the innocent.  These 10 girls (multiplied) could then return to their families.

This offering of love could be offered to the Blessed Trinity for the end of abortion, too.

ISIS is just traditional enough to partake in this exchange.  Did you know that over 1,000,000 Christian slaves (from 1200 to 1900) were returned by Muslims in exchange for monks, brothers, priests (and funds raised) during the Middle Ages?  Times are more ripe than ever.  Surely God is raising up men for ransom again, for even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.”—Mark 10:45 and “greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”—John 15:13

 

Infallible? Part 2 of 2

A lightning strikes the basilica of St Peter's dome

One of the surprising things I have found among priests and laity during the Pontificate of Pope Francis is that certain people who used to despise the word “obedience,” say ten years ago, now go on quoting “obedience” as if they were St. John of the Cross.

I walked into a tea-house yesterday and I got surrounded by three adults older than me who first wanted to know what I was, why I had a long black robe on and what I thought of Pope Francis.  As to the third, I simply said that the first public words of Jesus and John the Baptist were “Repent and Believe” and that the measure of a Pope is to the extent that the people have heard that same call to repentance and faith (as repentance and faith are the only two portals towards hope of loving Jesus Christ as He deserves.)

Now that I think about it, judgment of a Pope does not belong to a priest like me, but to God…and maybe a bit to history, many centuries in the future:  A pope will ultimately not be judged on his popularity, but whether he is bringing consciences to life—or allaying consciences to remain asleep.  Thus, it’s my job as a priest not to judge the Pope, but to remain obedient and to preach the Gospel.

There is excitement and concern, from the left and right respectively, that the October 2015 “Synod on the Family” will change Church teaching on divorced and remarried receiving Holy Communion as well as those in homosexual unions being allowed to receive Holy Communion.  You might imagine that I don’t participate in the excitement of “the left” that doctrine might change, but did you know that I don’t participate in the worry to “the right” either?

Here’s why:  A synod does not carry the weight of infallibility.  In my last post, I explained the levels of infallibility, the highest being the Sacred Scriptures, which speak clearly on the above issues of sexuality and worthy communion in Matthew 19:9 and 1 Cor 11:26-29. The Council of Trent is another example of an aspect of Divine Revelation that is also infallible.  It too speaks clearly on the sacraments of Marriage and the Eucharist.

However, a synod does not only not have the weight of infallibility, but there is precedent for error in a synod!  This false-synod was the 18th century  Synod of Pistoia where Jansenism was promoted.  Jansenism is the heresy of despair of God’s mercy.  It’s sneaky that Satan may now be tempting the Church hierarchy towards presumption of God’s mercy, the opposite of the above.  The devil’s tricky with that pendulum swing!

Thus, if the bishops go against the Bible in October, the Bible wins.  This is not Protestantism.

I hope I’m wrong, but I predict error coming in the October 2015 Synod of the Family, followed by some form of beautiful or powerful Divine Intervention.  This is not because I’m a Savonarola prophet of doom.  It’s simply because of the manifest and public, shameless teaching of the Cardinals who have been recently promoted in these “family matters,” as reported by Life Site News:

Cardinal Godfried Danneels: The retired former archbishop of Brussels was a special appointment by Pope Francis to the 2014 Synod of Bishops. In addition to wearing rainbow liturgical vestments and being caught on tape concealing sexual abuse, Danneels said in 2013 of the passage of gay “marriage”: “I think it’s a positive development that states are free to open up civil marriage for gays if they want.”

Cardinal Walter Kasper: A few days into his pontificate Pope Francis praised one of Cardinal Kasper’s books, and then selected the cardinal to deliver the controversial keynote address to the consistory of cardinals advocating his proposal to allow divorced and civilly remarried Catholics to receive communion in some circumstances. This proposal led to the high-profile debate at the first Synod of Bishops on the Family. Cardinal Kasper has again been selected as a personal appointee of the pope to the second Synod and regularly meets with Pope Francis. Kasper defended the vote of the Irish in favor of homosexual “marriages”, saying: “A democratic state has the duty to respect the will of the people; and it seems clear that, if the majority of the people wants such homosexual unions, the state has a duty to recognize such rights.”

Archbishop Bruno Forte: The archbishop of Chieti-Vasto was appointed Special Secretary to the 2014 Synod by Pope Francis. He is the Italian theologian who was credited with drafting the controversial homosexuality section of the infamous midterm report of the Synod which spoke of “accepting and valuing [homosexuals’] sexual orientation.” When questioned about the language, Forte said homosexual unions have “rights that should be protected,” calling it an “issue of civilization and respect of those people.”

Father Timothy Radcliffe: In May, Pope Francis appointed the former Master of the Dominican Order as a consultor for the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace despite his well-known support for homosexuality. Writing on homosexuality in 2013, he said: “We must ask what it means, and how far it is Eucharistic. Certainly it can be generous, vulnerable, tender, mutual and non-violent. So in many ways, I would think that it can be expressive of Christ’s self-gift.” In a 2006 lecture he advocated “accompanying” homosexuals, which he defined as “watching ‘Brokeback Mountain,’ reading gay novels, living with our gay friends and listening with them as they listen to the Lord.”

Bishop Johan Bonny: The bishop of Antwerp in Belgium has just been named as one of the delegates to the 2015 Synod of Bishops on the Family despite open dissent on homosexual unions. While being named as a delegate to the synod may not in itself constitute a major promotion, what is unique about Bonny is the extremity and clarity of his dissent. “Inside the Church, we must look for a formal recognition of the relational dimension that is also present in many homosexual, lesbian and bisexual couples,” he said in a December 2014 interview. “In the same way that in society there exists a diversity of legal frameworks for partners, there must be a diversity of forms of recognition in the Church.”

 

Let me (Fr. Nix, now) be very clear that I am obedient to Rome and the bishops, but no bishop can change the words of Jesus Christ and what He said about divorce or what the Holy Spirit has said through the Apostle Paul on acting out any sexual sin (heterosexual or homosexual.)  Pray hard that I’m wrong about error coming down the pipes of this October Synod, but if I’m not, just remember that a synod can not change the words of Jesus Christ.  This is not a Protestant who believes in Sola Scriptura.  That is why I wrote on the hierarchy of doctrine in my last post, quoting Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical on the Sacred Scriptures and Councils (part of the Magisterium.)

I hope I’m wrong, but if I’m right and the synod disseminates error, “the right” will frenzy on how to explain the doctrinal confusion and “the left” will frenzy on how to rejoice over the doctrinal confusion. Either approach would be both unnecessary and superfluous.  That’s because this synod is pastoral in nature, not doctrinal.

Speaking of “pastoral” men at the pre-synod last year, I wish I could have told them all that it’s not that hard to present the words of Love-Incarnate-Himself as “merciful and pastoral,” even on topics of marriage. I could have assured them of this by recounting many conversations I’ve had in bars, taxis and shady streets.  So, why didn’t anyone at the pre-Synod (to my knowledge) present on how to reach real people with a real Gospel?  I fear they know neither a concrete Gospel nor any real people.

So, unfortunately there is precedent for error in a synod. And, again, we have to be thankful that no synod can change the faith or morals of Holy Mother Church, especially that Faith articulated in Scripture, Councils, Creeds, Church Fathers and the Ex-Cathedra statements made by two Popes.  These five things (not synods of pastoral discussion) are the transmissions of faith and morals that fall under Christ’s promise of the indefectibility to the Church:

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”—Matthew 16:18-19

The upcoming synod is not bound in heaven.  It’s doctrinally Little League…but…It could still cause millions of souls to go to hell through misguidance towards presumption of God’s mercy on sexual matters.  Thus, it could become the Major League for Satan.

That’s why we have to pray so hard.

As Padre Pio said, “Pray, Hope and Don’t worry.”  God will straighten it out, even if things go down bad in October.

Infallible? Part 1 of 2

St_Peter_Besenzi

Many Protestants believe that Catholics believe that anything the Pope says is infallible. This is a superstition. Strangely, some “progressive” priests have recently been promoting this superstition.

We must return to the sources of revelation, especially those sources which the Church considers to be “without error.”  Pope Leo XIII wrote that the following five aspects of Catholic Revelation can be held to be definitely without any error:

1) Sacred Scripture

2) Councils (eg. the Council of Trent)

3) Creeds (eg. Nicene Constantinopolitan Creed.)

4) Anytime the Church Fathers speak in union.

5) Ex-Cathedra Statements by the Pope (only done twice in history, on Mary’s Immaculate Conception [1854] and Mary’s Assumption [1950.])

All five of the above are without error (a negative charism) but only one of them is considered to be word-for-word, no-more and no-less exactly as God willed it, functioning as a positive charism:  The Sacred Scriptures.

This may smack of Protestantism or fundamentalistism even to the best of Catholics.  It is not. It is Our Faith:

For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit.”—Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, #20.

After reading this 1893 encyclical by Pope Leo XIII, the analogy I choose to describe his description of doctrine is a dart board:  Every part of the Creeds or Councils are guaranteed by the Holy Ghost to land on the dart board.  But Scripture hits the bull’s eye every time.

Some of the greatest preaching and miracle-working saints had the entire Bible memorized.  An example would be St. Anthony of Padua.   St. Thomas Aquinas also had the whole Bible memorized.  In his Summa Theologica, St. Thomas Aquinas’ gives two sides of a theological argument.  He settles the argument not by his own authority as an innovator (as some Scholastics seem to imply) but by the Bible, rightly interpreted by the Magisterium and Church Fathers. (The Church later put her stamp on St. Thomas as the clearest and most reliable interpreter of Scripture.)  But Scripture remained the fountain, and St. Thomas the fountain-keeper.

Thus, neither St. Thomas Aquinas nor a Pope nor a synod can contradict Scripture, the highest source of Divine Revelation flowing directly from the Divine Word Incarnate, Jesus Christ.  Even then, the only topics considered infallible are articulated faith and morals.

John Allen (who writes for the liberal National Catholic Reporter) actually has an excellent article on Pope Francis, where Pope Francis admits he is a bit rusty on modern topics:

http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2015/07/13/under-francis-theres-a-new-dogma-papal-fallibility/

Notice that within 65-minutes with reporters, Pope Francis explained his lack of surety at least seven times with phrases like: “I don’t understand it very well”; “I don’t know if it’s true”; “It’s an error of mine not to think about this,”; “If I make a mistake, with a bit of shame I ask forgiveness and go forward”;  “I don’t want to say something wrong” and  “one sentence can be manipulated.”

I appreciate the humility on economic topics, but I could have told you “I don’t know.”  (I only found out what a mortgage was last year at the age of 35.)

But as to far-reaching theological statements of Pope Francis, let me say only say that I’m tired of semi-orthodox theologians and bloggers telling us that Pope Francis didn’t really mean what Pope Francis said.  It was fair to give that odd grammatical clean-up team in Rome (and the neo-con Catholic blogs in the USA) a bit of modification-leeway at the beginning of his Pontificate. But now the liberals are probably right about one thing: Pope Francis means very much what he says, and he believes what he promotes. If a man should be taken at his word, shouldn’t the Pope? In pre-kindergarten, monitors would make peace between children, saying things like “Frenchy didn’t mean what he said…” Pope Francis means what he says.  He is an adult who officially sits on the seat of Peter.  The Pope (like St. Thomas Aquinas) has always been called to be the interpreter of the Faith, not the interpreted.

We must respect the Pope, but that doesn’t mean everything the Pope says is without error, as the Holy Father readily admits. John Allen points out that for a Pope’s words to be considered infallible, there are three requirements outlined by Vatican I that must be met with precision for a Pope to make an infallible ex-cathdra decision:

  • It pertains to faith and morals.
  • It does not contradict Scripture or Divine Revelation.
  • It’s intended to be held by the whole Church.

No such doctrinal proclamation has ever been made by Pope Francis, or any Pope for that matter since 1950.

The Last Enemy

My homily from today in the TLM calendar, the 7th Sunday after Pentecost on the line from St. Paul to the Romans, “The wages of sin is death.” These will hopefully be in podcast format starting this summer, but here it is for now. Right-click to download any of these.

Miracle

As a seminarian in 2009, I introduced two of my close friends to each other at the March for Life in San Francisco.  Although from different parts of the country, they too became good enough friends for Beth to fly out to Denver for Fr. Nepil’s ordination in 2011.  There, Beth came to know Bl. Pier Giorgio Frassati, a 20th century Italian mountain-climber and servant of the poor who died young; he was found on Fr. Nepil’s ordination card. What Beth did with that ordination card led to a series of events (on Long-Island with her family of origin) which were recently scrutinized by the Papal Nuncio of the Vatican to possibly make this story below the second miracle needed for Frassati to become a Catholic saint:

Free-Will and Suffering

planet_collide0

Should God have ended the world when Adam and Eve sinned?

As I tell high-school kids, as soon as Adam and Eve had sinned…There were only three options that God had for a planet spiraling towards total sin:

1) Blow up earth to end both sin and free-will…or…

2) Turn people into robots that would automatically obey, so as to terminate free-will but keep the planet…or…

3) Send a rescuer who could transform the human state of suffering into redemptive suffering.

If you can think of a fourth option, let me know.  In the mean time, notice that only the third option allows for free-will.

Because option #3 allows for free-will to continue among both the good and evil people on this blue planet, it is the only option that allows for either love or harming people until the end of time.

For example, if a woman is choosing to offer up her suffering for her children after her husband was killed by a drunk driver, she can only choose to unite her redemptive suffering to Christ’s infinite merits of the cross precisely because she lives in a world where someone else can choose to drive drunk.  This is why widows must live side-by-side with drunk drivers until the final judgment.

We each have the option to continue the cycle of suffering and sin, or… we can choose to escape from that horrible cycle.  Baptism ends sin (original sin, at least, and actual sin in the lives of some saints) but suffering continues for them.  However, their suffering then ceases to have a certain mental pain, as God said to St. Catherine of Siena.  When you carry the cross God has allowed in your life, your suffering can become redemptive because it more easily fits with the merits of the passion, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  With Christ, we escape the red patten to the left in favor of the orange trajectory, a different trajectory of suffering:

22c002af223a0f8468294e11aa427e33

This is only possible by the cross.  I put the cross in blue for two reasons. The vertical blue bar shows that Mary gave God the one thing He didn’t have: The ability to die. This symbolizes Christ’s incarnation and His approach to us. Secondly, our incorporation into the mystical body of Christ happens in the waters of baptism (the horizontal blue line.) As St. Peter writes, “It is baptism that now saves you.”—1 Pt 3:21. Suffering has little value in  itself until it be incorporated into the suffering mystical body of Christ. This happens at baptism, because it is at that moment that we receive all of the merits of the Passion, Death and Resurrection of Christ as a free gift of redemption.  The best description of death to oneself, baptism, and this new life can be found in Romans 6:3-11.

Death is the cycle to the left.  The requirement for new life is: a new life.  The gift of the cross is free (gratis) to us at the high price Jesus paid for us in his 17 hours of torture…nay, His whole life lived for us.  But, for salvation to be realized, we must cooperate.  The cross doesn’t offer an escape from suffering but it does offer an escape from sin, and that part is up to our cooperation with grace in living in our free will as we become transformed, divinized sons and daughters of God.

We are then given the chance on this earth to let our sufferings be united to those of Jesus (through Mary) so as to become participators in redemptive suffering.  Again, in itself, suffering has no value.  But joined to the cross, it helps redeem the world.  It helps pull more people out of the cycle on the left to the orange bar on the right.  This is all that the old-school (and now new-school) nuns meant when they said “Offer it up.”  It all comes from what the Apostle Paul wrote to the Colossians: “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of His body, that is, the Church.”—Col 1:24.

What is lacking or wanting in the suffering of Jesus?  Nothing except my participation.  It was 100%, but that 100% continues in His mystical body.  As long as sin continues on the earth, so also must the suffering of Christians.  It is a gift, not a burden, and it is joined to Christ’s sufferings at the nearest Mass.  That is why both the suffering of the Mystical Body and the Mass continue until the end of time.

At the final judgment, the left cycle will continue in hell.  However, the right trajectory will become heaven.

Here on earth, both cycles have to suffer.  So, if you have your choice between the devil’s eternal cross and Jesus’ temporary cross, why not avoid sin and choose the pattern to the right?

4th of July in the District

JFK said Washington DC “is a city of Southern efficiency and Northern charm.” I don’t know about that, but right across the Potomac outside the District, the lovely opposite is true: Virginia is a place of Northern efficiency and Southern charm…and hospitality. Proof of this is the work my friends went through to smoke a shoulder and prepare a smorgasbord of ribs for several other young families on this wet 4th just outside the Nation’s Capital:

IMG_0053

FullSizeRender